# C_2007223EN.01001801.xml

| 22.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/18

---

Action brought on 11 July 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-133/06)

(2007/C 223/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul the decision rejecting the applicant's application of 31 August 2005 to the Appointing Authority for the restoration to him of the property which was formerly situated at the accommodation provided to him by his employer in Angola and which was wrongfully seized by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul the decision rejecting the applicant's application of 31 August 2005 to the Appointing Authority for the restoration to him of the property which was formerly situated at the accommodation provided to him by his employer in Angola and which was wrongfully seized by the Commission;

| — | declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul in so far as is necessary the decision of the Appointing Authority of 20 July 2006 rejecting the applicant's complaint against the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul in so far as is necessary the decision of the Appointing Authority of 20 July 2006 rejecting the applicant's complaint against the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to restore the applicant's property to him; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to restore the applicant's property to him;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 1 000 000, or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, by way of compensation for the damage to the applicant deriving from the contested decision from the date of the request of 31 August 2005 or, in the alternative, from the date of the contested decision to the present date; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 1 000 000, or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, by way of compensation for the damage to the applicant deriving from the contested decision from the date of the request of 31 August 2005 or, in the alternative, from the date of the contested decision to the present date;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant, in respect of each day from the present date until the date on which each decision granting fully and unconditionally the request of 31 August 2005 is implemented by the defendant, the sum of EUR 300 or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, to be paid on the first day of each month in respect of rights accrued during the previous month, by way of compensation for the damage deriving from the contested decision and arising in the abovementioned period; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant, in respect of each day from the present date until the date on which each decision granting fully and unconditionally the request of 31 August 2005 is implemented by the defendant, the sum of EUR 300 or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, to be paid on the first day of each month in respect of rights accrued during the previous month, by way of compensation for the damage deriving from the contested decision and arising in the abovementioned period;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his arguments, the applicant relies on the following three pleas in law:

| (1) | absolute failure to state reasons, also on the basis that the reasons put forward by the defendant are illogical, inconsistent, confusing and in the nature of a pretext; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

absolute failure to state reasons, also on the basis that the reasons put forward by the defendant are illogical, inconsistent, confusing and in the nature of a pretext;

| (2) | serious and manifest infringement of the law; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

serious and manifest infringement of the law;

| (3) | breach of the obligation to have due regard to the welfare of officials and of the principle of sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

breach of the obligation to have due regard to the welfare of officials and of the principle of sound administration.

---